Am I a political hypocrite?

[FirstAscent]

Any number of social studies show people will band together, form a governing body, lay down rules and expectations of the group and so forth when left to their own. Even smaller studies of students in a class or sub group have shown they do the same, they set rules of expected behavior even if those rules are not written or even fully communicated everyone knows what is considered normal and defiant  behavior.

Hence lynch mobs.

[1713586634]

1713586634

[1713586634]

1713586634

[1713586634]

1713586634

[1713586634]

1713586634

[Hawker]

I didn't mean to be as mean as my last few posts sound.  I'm just completely floored that some of you actually think people will self-govern and do the right thing when the whole of human history says otherwise.

I know what you mean - it is weird how dreamy and idealistic some of these guys are..  In another thread, FredericBastiet and Bitcoin2Cash are seriously arguing that everyone should be entitled to have nuclear weapons.

Imagine if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner had a nuke instead of a pistol;  does it really help the situation to argue that his victims could have detonated their nukes as well?

I grew up in Ireland at a time when there was an paramilitary army made up of people who believed their "liberty" was infringed by there being too many Protestants in the northern counties.  I dread to think what they would have done if they had been able to use nukes. 

Any number of social studies show people will band together, form a governing body, lay down rules and expectations of the group and so forth when left to their own. Even smaller studies of students in a class or sub group have shown they do the same, they set rules of expected behavior even if those rules are not written or even fully communicated everyone knows what is considered normal and defiant  behavior.

Agreed.  Thats the basis of law - a shared set of norms.  Some people who don't share the norm need to be coerced to go along with it.  Thats why we have laws.

[FirstAscent]

I didn't mean to be as mean as my last few posts sound.  I'm just completely floored that some of you actually think people will self-govern and do the right thing when the whole of human history says otherwise.

I know what you mean - it is weird how dreamy and idealistic some of these guys are..  In another thread, FredericBastiet and Bitcoin2Cash are seriously arguing that everyone should be entitled to have nuclear weapons.

Imagine if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner had a nuke instead of a pistol;  does it really help the situation to argue that his victims could have detonated their nukes as well?

I grew up in Ireland at a time when there was an paramilitary army made up of people who believed their "liberty" was infringed by there being too many Protestants in the northern counties.  I dread to think what they would have done if they had been able to use nukes. 

Any number of social studies show people will band together, form a governing body, lay down rules and expectations of the group and so forth when left to their own. Even smaller studies of students in a class or sub group have shown they do the same, they set rules of expected behavior even if those rules are not written or even fully communicated everyone knows what is considered normal and defiant  behavior.

Agreed.  Thats the basis of law - a shared set of norms.  Some people who don't share the norm need to be coerced to go along with it.  Thats why we have laws.

I don't think his views are in complete alignment with yours. He's arguing against government, saying societies will function absent a set of enforced laws. I countered by saying lynching will occur.

[JBDive]

I didn't mean to be as mean as my last few posts sound.  I'm just completely floored that some of you actually think people will self-govern and do the right thing when the whole of human history says otherwise.

I know what you mean - it is weird how dreamy and idealistic some of these guys are..  In another thread, FredericBastiet and Bitcoin2Cash are seriously arguing that everyone should be entitled to have nuclear weapons.

Imagine if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner had a nuke instead of a pistol;  does it really help the situation to argue that his victims could have detonated their nukes as well?

I grew up in Ireland at a time when there was an paramilitary army made up of people who believed their "liberty" was infringed by there being too many Protestants in the northern counties.  I dread to think what they would have done if they had been able to use nukes. 

Any number of social studies show people will band together, form a governing body, lay down rules and expectations of the group and so forth when left to their own. Even smaller studies of students in a class or sub group have shown they do the same, they set rules of expected behavior even if those rules are not written or even fully communicated everyone knows what is considered normal and defiant  behavior.

Agreed.  Thats the basis of law - a shared set of norms.  Some people who don't share the norm need to be coerced to go along with it.  Thats why we have laws.

I don't think his views are in complete alignment with yours. He's arguing against government, saying societies will function absent a set of enforced laws. I countered by saying lynching will occur.

Any what specifically about lynching makes a self governing group of people nonfunctional? What is the difference in an execution ordered by a court of law and an execution decided upon by the group as a whole? I would argue actually that there would be fewer deviants in a self governing body over what we have now.

The US has about 4.2% of it's population under some form of correctional supervision, from prison to various stages of parole. It is my contention a group of people left to self govern would see far less than that in deviant behavior that exceeds social norms to the point it required action by the group to enact formal punishment. Sure there would be the fringe elements however given the need for social interaction in a self governing society those on the fringe would be pulled to the center far more than they are in our current society.

Take a look at Home Owner's Associations as an example of a group of people that through a common need form a self governing society. Look at this forum or any other on the Internet where the group as a whole has defined what is proper and accepted even though there may be a ruling party (Admin) it is the group that self governs.

You may find this of interest:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5a8or_netocracy-authors_news

[FirstAscent]

Any what specifically about lynching makes a self governing group of people nonfunctional? What is the difference in an execution ordered by a court of law and an execution decided upon by the group as a whole? I would argue actually that there would be fewer deviants in a self governing body over what we have now.

This is scary.

The US has about 4.2% of it's population under some form of correctional supervision, from prison to various stages of parole. It is my contention a group of people left to self govern would see far less than that in deviant behavior that exceeds social norms to the point it required action by the group to enact formal punishment. Sure there would be the fringe elements however given the need for social interaction in a self governing society those on the fringe would be pulled to the center far more than they are in our current society.

Take a look at Home Owner's Associations as an example of a group of people that through a common need form a self governing society. Look at this forum or any other on the Internet where the group as a whole has defined what is proper and accepted even though there may be a ruling party (Admin) it is the group that self governs.

Home Owners' Associations have been discussed in this forum before. They are in fact like miniature governments - they even tax their residents! But you're mistaken if you think they're self governing. The behavior of people in an HOA is still influenced by the state.

[JBDive]

Any what specifically about lynching makes a self governing group of people nonfunctional? What is the difference in an execution ordered by a court of law and an execution decided upon by the group as a whole? I would argue actually that there would be fewer deviants in a self governing body over what we have now.

This is scary.

The US has about 4.2% of it's population under some form of correctional supervision, from prison to various stages of parole. It is my contention a group of people left to self govern would see far less than that in deviant behavior that exceeds social norms to the point it required action by the group to enact formal punishment. Sure there would be the fringe elements however given the need for social interaction in a self governing society those on the fringe would be pulled to the center far more than they are in our current society.

Take a look at Home Owner's Associations as an example of a group of people that through a common need form a self governing society. Look at this forum or any other on the Internet where the group as a whole has defined what is proper and accepted even though there may be a ruling party (Admin) it is the group that self governs.

Home Owners' Associations have been discussed in this forum before. They are in fact like miniature governments - they even tax their residents! But you're mistaken if you think they're self governing. The behavior of people in an HOA is still influenced by the state.

I was in fact noting that HOA's come into existence because a group of people who have locality, social/economic similarities and an overall sense that they need a governing body do in fact create one. They are under no obligation to do so but take that path on their own which when going back to my original statements people if left alone will self govern.

Look at your own circles back in High School and College where you were placed into a large group and what happened? Your large group subdivided into subgroups of similar background, economics, interest, etc, you formed tribes. Those in your tribe had to maintain a middle of the road social norm or they were looked upon as a deviant and likely removed from the group, either temporarily until they returned to the social norm or permanently. Your tribe had structure as there were leaders and followers and those leaders were allowed to lead by agreement of the group and at any time the group may and likely did migrate to others as leaders in whole or in part depending on the needs of the group (tribe).

People will self govern. Can you just turn off our Oligarchy, of course not but we can first off return the ruling power to a full representative body, then to the states and as things transition over a period of years, maybe decades, Government becomes a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" once again. I would argue that what is happening in Europe, Greece especially, as a perfect example of what happens when the public no longer feels they are able to govern themselves through elections and instead of self governing they are Governed by the power elite. Pending riots, strikes and potential revolt across the EU is a perfect example of Government oppression by a few (Oligarchy - EU Commission/Banks) where the public feels they have lost not their freedoms as much as their right to self govern even if that is at a national level.

[FirstAscent]

I was in fact noting that HOA's come into existence because a group of people who have locality, social/economic similarities and an overall sense that they need a governing body do in fact create one. They are under no obligation to do so but take that path on their own which when going back to my original statements people if left alone will self govern.

Look at your own circles back in High School and College where you were placed into a large group and what happened? Your large group subdivided into subgroups of similar background, economics, interest, etc, you formed tribes. Those in your tribe had to maintain a middle of the road social norm or they were looked upon as a deviant and likely removed from the group, either temporarily until they returned to the social norm or permanently. Your tribe had structure as there were leaders and followers and those leaders were allowed to lead by agreement of the group and at any time the group may and likely did migrate to others as leaders in whole or in part depending on the needs of the group (tribe).

People will self govern. Can you just turn off our Oligarchy, of course not but we can first off return the ruling power to a full representative body, then to the states and as things transition over a period of years, maybe decades, Government becomes a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" once again. I would argue that what is happening in Europe, Greece especially, as a perfect example of what happens when the public no longer feels they are able to govern themselves through elections and instead of self governing they are Governed by the power elite. Pending riots, strikes and potential revolt across the EU is a perfect example of Government oppression by a few (Oligarchy - EU Commission/Banks) where the public feels they have lost not their freedoms as much as their right to self govern even if that is at a national level.

Do you realize what you're calling for? Tribal warfare. Gangs. Ostracizing. Racism. Bullying. Warlords. Walls. Fortresses.

Decent people will want in the good communities, and thus the good communities willl grow, and write a constitution, declare a tax, and become a nation.

[JBDive]

I am not calling for anything. I am stating in as many ways as I can that people will self govern. If left without a central government people will still form up for the common good of all vs. running amok slashing, murdering, raping - basic pillaging on a grand scale. As I said if you just turn off the Government you will of course have your tribal warfare, gangs but again I would argue even in the case of gangs you see self governance.  You may not approve of the means and manner (murder, beatings, etc) but there is order within a gang they don't just all go out doing whatever they want to whoever they want. We are not arguing over the virtue of the people, the right or wrong in which they do things but rather than people will form units with like social norms vs. everyone being a person amongst themselves.

Look at your African nations, middle east and even Asia as governments fell there was always a group that banded back together for the common good of the group. It may take years but no people want total anarchy and by that I take this definition, absence or denial of any authority or established order. Had many of those places been left alone and not had to deal with foreign influences, foreign armies, contrived puppet governments it's my opinion even places like Somalia would have stabilized far sooner than they have.

[Hawker]

I am not calling for anything. I am stating in as many ways as I can that people will self govern. If left without a central government people will still form up for the common good of all vs. running amok slashing, murdering, raping - basic pillaging on a grand scale. As I said if you just turn off the Government you will of course have your tribal warfare, gangs but again I would argue even in the case of gangs you see self governance.  You may not approve of the means and manner (murder, beatings, etc) but there is order within a gang they don't just all go out doing whatever they want to whoever they want. We are not arguing over the virtue of the people, the right or wrong in which they do things but rather than people will form units with like social norms vs. everyone being a person amongst themselves.

Look at your African nations, middle east and even Asia as governments fell there was always a group that banded back together for the common good of the group. It may take years but no people want total anarchy and by that I take this definition, absence or denial of any authority or established order. Had many of those places been left alone and not had to deal with foreign influences, foreign armies, contrived puppet governments it's my opinion even places like Somalia would have stabilized far sooner than they have.

But surely thats the point.  Your society will never be "left alone" because you have violent groups inside your community that want to have their own way and you have other societies who see a weak defenceless society and set about exploiting it.  You need a police force and courts for the internal enemies and you need some kind of army to deal with external aggression. 

[gopher]

Until about a half a year ago, I was a liberal democrat.  Then I started to think I was a libertarian, then an anarchist.  Now, I've realized that I can't define it because what I want for myself is different than what I want for others.

(Not previously, but nowadays) I go to great lengths to preserve my individual liberty and pretty much don't think about laws or society in general.  I simply do what I'm going to do and interact with people in a manner consistent with my own morals, and I consider law only in terms of the hassle of its consequence and the chance of being caught.

However, I am very glad that laws and society and government exist, because I believe most people, if they acted freely because law and government were abolished, would act much less ethically than I would, and I think they would generally destroy civilization.  My life time experience with people has lead me to believe they will always put short-term gain and immediate self interest above all else, including long-term gains and interests.  In short, most people are stupid.

So as much as I find governments of all sorts to be grossly inefficient and I dislike many laws, I am very very happy to live in a society that has such things because most people are sheep in addition to being stupid, and I think these inefficient laws protect them and me and do more good than harm by being in place.  And it doesn't bother me at all that I pick and choose which ones I obey.

Is it weird or hypocritical that I go about my life freely without thought of governance but think it's a really good thing that others feel constrained by laws and government?

Or am I just some kind of psycho?  I really just don't trust the judgement of others.

You are a political hypocrite.

Well, let me rephrase that - the society at large is political hypocrite, and you being a member of it (willing or not) makes you one too.

Why do I say that the society in large is political hypocrite.

Look at it from historical perspective. All modern so-called democratic governments can trace their roots to the previous dictatorships (all kind), in fact they have retained huge number of governing model properties for their own benefit.

As all of them claim that (1) they represent the interest of the majority and (2) that their constitution is based on universal equality, i.e. no citizen has more rights than any other, right then and there (in their laws, which theoretically should not be contradicting their constitution) they go and give themselves rights and powers that exceed the ones they allowed the ordinary citizens.

That's the ultimate in political hypocrisy.

What you feel is just an ordinary feeling of guilt the the government programmed in you (trough the myriad of propaganda mechanisms they have on their disposal) - well, don't be feeling bad - you are not alone, there are around 6 billion ordinary citizens (I'm excluding the ones that work for the governments and benefit from the government-centric-monopolies) who feel the same.

I am a supporter of the extremely small minority that believes we need government - but what we don't need is a dictator-government that calls themselves democratic-government.

What the society needs is a government that will govern it as a direct democracy that will use the technology to the advantage of the citizens - to conduct effective referendums instead of assuming the right to act representatively, to create and oversee the success of a technology driven monetary system (Bitcoin comes to mind...). A modern-version government built on the foundation of the long-time-dead-and-forgotten Venetian government (look it up), or as a compromise, to the modern day Swiss government (again, look it up).

But definitely not..this...whatever they call themselves.. (says gopher in disgust!)

Now, let me go into Utopia mode - imagine a government that:

1. Have no commercial conflict of interest with the society they govern, i.e. not profiteering from manufacturing and dealing with arms, profiteering from regulatory functions (selling licenses to the highest bidder) or procuring from overseas manufacturers who compete with their own tax-paying corporations.

2. Are appointed based on merit, i.e. the member of the body who makes law is a lawyer, the cabinet member responsible for an industry has long experience as a operator in said industry, the president has proven track record in all the executive functions he is applying to be appointed for.

3. All government employees (including executives) salaries are based on the country's GDP - that will be a direct incentive for them to drive the GDP in the right direction, right?

4. If a government starts a war (i.e. directs any of its citizens to fight and die for the cause the government believes in), depending on the outcome of the war compared to the cause, all executives in that government should be held personally accountable for those deaths.

And I am sure many wil be able to add to this list.

Take care!

[JBDive]

I am not calling for anything. I am stating in as many ways as I can that people will self govern. If left without a central government people will still form up for the common good of all vs. running amok slashing, murdering, raping - basic pillaging on a grand scale. As I said if you just turn off the Government you will of course have your tribal warfare, gangs but again I would argue even in the case of gangs you see self governance.  You may not approve of the means and manner (murder, beatings, etc) but there is order within a gang they don't just all go out doing whatever they want to whoever they want. We are not arguing over the virtue of the people, the right or wrong in which they do things but rather than people will form units with like social norms vs. everyone being a person amongst themselves.

Look at your African nations, middle east and even Asia as governments fell there was always a group that banded back together for the common good of the group. It may take years but no people want total anarchy and by that I take this definition, absence or denial of any authority or established order. Had many of those places been left alone and not had to deal with foreign influences, foreign armies, contrived puppet governments it's my opinion even places like Somalia would have stabilized far sooner than they have.

But surely thats the point.  Your society will never be "left alone" because you have violent groups inside your community that want to have their own way and you have other societies who see a weak defenceless society and set about exploiting it.  You need a police force and courts for the internal enemies and you need some kind of army to deal with external aggression.  

No that's not the point. You argued that people would run amok, I said they wouldn't. You have proven my point in fact that people will ban together and self govern.

I also do not accept your premise that you must form courts, an army a police force. We do those things in our society so a handful of people are responsible for the safety of others vs. the society itself being responsible for it's safety. We do this because it would obviously be impossible for a nation of 300 million to hold court but mainly because we are fat and lazy and want others to do this for us. We hire a bunch of uneducated 18 year olds to wage our wars, note I said wage our wars as we (The US) are the aggressor and have been in almost all cases of wars fought by this country. We hire uneducated bullies to run our police in order to protect the assets of a few and to keep the deviants inline where my premise is that if society was self policing those deviants would not exist or would be driven out of the society and as I said would certainly not constitute 4.2% of our population.

Take a look at countries such as Costa Rica, no standing army, in fact it was banned 60 years ago and yet that society ranks as one of the highest in Socioeconomic growth. They are bordered by two countries which have a history of corruption and revolution yet it has not caused the fall of Costa Rica. Switzerland is another, although not perfect, example of a society governing itself. You have a direct democracy where anyone can challenge the laws meaning the laws are written by the people in essence as well as a citizen army in that everyone (males) must serve to protect the society as a whole. Switzerland has been surrounded by aggressor armies for hundreds of years yet they have maintained their society, not had to wage wars (although one could argue they wage monetary wars) and as a perfect example of society banding together for the good of society they are the birthplace of the Red Cross.